Book a demo
Hyper Ice v. MerchSource: Percussion Massager Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID8:24-cv-02035
FiledSep 2024
ClosedSep 2024
Patent Litigation

Hyper Ice v. MerchSource: Percussion Massager Patent Dismissed in 7 Days

Hyper Ice, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against MerchSource LLC — trading as Sharper Image — over the Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager, asserting US12036174B1. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 7 days after filing, before MerchSource filed any answer or motion.

Resolution time
7days
Resolved in 7 days — unusually fast even for early voluntary dismissals
Patents asserted
1
US12036174B1 — Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager technology
Outcome
Dismissed without Prejudice
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Cost ruling
No Cost Order
No fees or costs awarded; pre-answer dismissal forecloses standard cost motions
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Seven-day patent filing: tactical probe or premature launch?

On September 19, 2024, Hyper Ice, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against MerchSource LLC, doing business as Sharper Image, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The asserted patent, US12036174B1, covers technology embodied in the Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager — a consumer wellness device combining percussive therapy with hot and cold temperature therapy. Hyper Ice was represented by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Miller Barondess, LLP.

Just seven days after filing, on September 26, 2024, Hyper Ice filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The notice confirmed that MerchSource had not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, meaning Hyper Ice was entitled to dismiss as of right — no court order was required. A dismissal without prejudice means the claims have not been adjudicated on the merits and Hyper Ice retains the right to re-file the same claims at a future date.

A resolution within seven days — before service was even confirmed to have been completed — is notable and suggests the filing may have served a tactical or transactional purpose rather than signalling intent to litigate to judgment. Possibilities consistent with the public record include a rapid negotiated resolution, a licensing discussion, or a premature filing subsequently reconsidered. The absence of defendant counsel on record and no docket activity beyond the complaint and dismissal notice leaves the underlying commercial motivation undisclosed.

Case at a glance
Case no.8:24-cv-02035
DefendantMerchsource
CourtCalifornia Central
JudgeN/A
FiledSeptember 19, 2024
ClosedSeptember 26, 2024
Duration7 days
OutcomeDismissed without Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed without Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / California Central District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 7 days

Resolved in 7 days — unusually fast even for early voluntary dismissals

Case timeline: Complaint filed SEP 19 2024, SEP–OCT — 7 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Hyper Ice, Inc. v Merchsource from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, California Central District Court. SEP 19 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings SEP 26 2024 Dismissed without Prejudice 7 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed without prejudice: what this outcome means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Hyper Ice confirmed MerchSource had taken neither step. The dismissal is self-executing — it takes effect upon filing and requires no judicial approval, making it one of the most procedurally clean exits available in federal civil litigation.

Pre-answer voluntary exit
Prejudice qualifier

Without prejudice: the infringement claims remain live

A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying dispute on the merits. Hyper Ice explicitly filed this notice ‘without prejudice’, meaning it retains the right to re-file the same patent infringement claims against MerchSource in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licence, or other agreement accompanied the dismissal — the door remains open on both sides.

Claims not extinguished
Defendant position

MerchSource escapes this action — but faces continued exposure

MerchSource, operating as Sharper Image, obtained a clean procedural exit with no adverse judgment, no injunction, and no cost order. No defence counsel appeared on the docket, suggesting the matter may have been resolved bilaterally before formal litigation posture was established. However, because the dismissal carries no preclusive effect, continued distribution of the accused product line without a licence or design-around remains a potential ongoing infringement risk.

No preclusion — risk persists
Commercial implications

Seven-day lifecycle signals strategic IP enforcement, not full litigation

In the consumer wellness and percussive therapy device sector, a filing-and-dismissal pattern of this brevity typically signals that the complaint functioned as a commercial lever — to accelerate licensing talks, signal patent coverage to the market, or prompt a rapid business resolution. Competitors and distributors in the hot and cold percussion massager space should note that US12036174B1 remains fully enforceable and that Hyper Ice has demonstrated a willingness to file suit.

Patent remains enforceable
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 8:24-cv-02035 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffHyper Ice, Inc.CompanyConsumer percussive therapy device maker — holder of US12036174B1Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantMerchsourceIndividualMerchSource LLC, dba Sharper Image — consumer electronics and wellness product distributorSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBenjamin A. HerbertAttorneyCounsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLawrence Robert LaPorteAttorneyCounsel for Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMiller Barondess, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Hyper Ice, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeCalifornia Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(i), Plaintiff Hyper Ice, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) hereby file this Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice of all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant MerchSource, LLC, dba Sharper Image in the abovestyled action. Plaintiff confirms that Defendant MerchSource, LLC, dba Sharper Image has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment prior to the filing of this Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 8:24-cv-02035, California Central District Court

The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely — a self-executing procedural mechanism available only before the defendant files a responsive pleading. The explicit confirmation that MerchSource had not answered or moved for summary judgment is a standard but important recital; it is the legal predicate for the as-of-right dismissal. The without-prejudice designation is the commercially significant phrase: Hyper Ice forfeits nothing on the merits, and the patent infringement claims survive in full for potential future assertion.

PACER case 8:24-cv-02035 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US12036174B1 — Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager

Publication No.US12036174B1
Application No.US18/526980
Patent details
ProductHot and cold percussive therapy massage device combining thermal and vibration recovery
Cited in actionSeptember 19, 2024

US12036174B1 protects technology embodied in the Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold percussion massager — a consumer recovery device that integrates percussive mechanical stimulation with active thermal control (both heating and cooling). The underlying application number is US18/526980. Percussive therapy devices have grown rapidly from professional sports recovery tools into mainstream consumer wellness products, and the addition of thermal capability represents a meaningful technical differentiation that Hyper Ice has sought to protect through this grant.

For competitors and distributors in the consumer wellness and recovery device market — including brands selling under licences such as Sharper Image — this patent represents a concrete enforcement risk on combined hot/cold percussion massager products. Hyper Ice’s willingness to file suit in the Central District of California, a jurisdiction well-versed in IP matters, and its rapid procedural action suggests an active enforcement posture. Companies developing or sourcing comparable devices should assess whether their thermal-percussive feature sets fall within the claim scope of US12036174B1.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO search against US12036174B1?

Any company developing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing a percussion massager with integrated hot or cold therapy functionality should treat US12036174B1 as a priority clearance target. This case demonstrates that Hyper Ice is prepared to assert this patent against major retail distribution channels — not just direct manufacturing competitors. R&D teams adding thermal features to existing massage gun product lines face elevated risk without a documented FTO position.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US12036174B1 against your product specifications, identify relevant prior art that may limit enforceability, and surface related Hyper Ice continuation or family applications that could extend coverage. Running an automated FTO analysis before your next product launch or distributor agreement is signed is materially faster and less expensive than defending a district court infringement action.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12036174B1 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar percussive therapy device patent cases in US district courts

Cases involving percussion massager and consumer recovery device patents in US federal district courts, including the Central District of California.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Hyper Ice, Inc. patent enforcement history, California Central case history, Hyper Ice, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Therabody v. competitorsMassage gun patent filingsThermal therapy device IPSharper Image patent cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the percussive therapy device IP landscape

A seven-day lifecycle in federal court is rarely accidental. Here is what IP and product teams should take from this filing.

US12036174B1 is live and Hyper Ice is actively enforcing it

The filing confirms Hyper Ice is prepared to use US12036174B1 offensively against distributors selling competing hot and cold percussion massager products. Any brand or retailer stocking products that overlap with the Powerboost Pro+ Hot & Cold feature set should treat this case as a signal to conduct FTO analysis before expanding distribution.

Pre-answer dismissals can mask rapid settlements or licensing outcomes

Seven-day dismissals in patent cases are uncommon. The absence of defendant counsel on record and no court activity beyond the notice suggests the parties may have reached an off-docket resolution quickly. Businesses in adjacent product categories should monitor whether MerchSource’s Sharper Image line is subsequently modified or removed — that outcome would be consistent with a negotiated exit.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on Hyper Ice’s enforcement strategy and percussive therapy device IP risk at district court level.
Hyper Ice portfolio mapSharper Image IP exposurePercussive therapy FTO risk
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Hyper v Merchsource — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track percussive therapy patent enforcement with PatSnap Eureka

US12036174B1 is active and Hyper Ice has demonstrated enforcement intent. Run an FTO search against your product specifications and set portfolio alerts to stay ahead of the next filing in the percussion massager space.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.